I really haven’t thought it though but perhaps a compromise of letting the states kept their extra representation of the electoral collage but changing from an all or nothing to allocating them proportionally might be more fair. So Mitt Might Win TX 25 to 13 and Obama might win CA 35 to 20 or something like that.

Sort of what ive been thinking. Can we just ditch the "winner take all" format?

__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning:

Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down.

Sort of what ive been thinking. Can we just ditch the "winner take all" format?

Not without a Constitutional amendment, which small states will torpedo.

As to the OP, if Romney decided to target 4-5 small but winnable "blue" states (in addition to real swing states) at this point, it could make a difference for him....say MN, WI, IA, or NV. Could be the difference if the polls have truly tightened as much as the Right insists they have.

__________________"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom."
--Rex Tillerson, at VMI commencement May 16, 2018

Sort of what ive been thinking. Can we just ditch the "winner take all" format?

It seems like it would get more people to vote. I mean I live in KS if Obama was running as a republican and Romney as the Dem I'm pretty sure Obama would win and the Reverse in NY. I think people would feel their vote counted more if it were not all or nothing.

I for one don't think it would be reasonably possible to just eliminate the electoral college all together. However, I think a distribution of votes would go a long way in bringing out the vote. I also think if it is the case that the winner of the popular election loses in the EC you're going to see a more vocal push on this, just because of the recency of the last time it happened.

I really haven’t thought it though but perhaps a compromise of letting the states kept their extra representation of the electoral collage but changing from an all or nothing to allocating them proportionally might be more fair. So Mitt Might Win TX 25 to 13 and Obama might win CA 35 to 20 or something like that.

States can decide to do something like that individually, maine and nebraska give the candidate that loses the statewide vote a chance to get an elector if they win a majority in a US congressional district.

I believe Obama won the Nebraska district that covers Omaha in 2008. I assume there was some clever redistricting since then and that is why there is no talk of him winning an elector there this year.

States can decide to do something like that individually, maine and nebraska give the candidate that loses the statewide vote a chance to get an elector if they win a majority in a US congressional district.

I believe Obama won the Nebraska district that covers Omaha in 2008. I assume there was some clever redistricting since then and that is why there is no talk of him winning an elector there this year.

Modern day gerrymandering. Nathan Bedford Forest would be proud...

__________________"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom."
--Rex Tillerson, at VMI commencement May 16, 2018

The Electoral College is not just in place to give smaller states more of a say in the election of the President. It is true though that smaller states votes would drown in the pool of a direct vote. It is also put in place to make sure that a regional candidate does not win an election.

In 2000 when Gore won he had an advantage of more than 3 million votes in California and New York yet he won the overall popular vote by less than 500,000.

In 1888 when Harrison beat Cleveland, the vote was Cleveland's favor. Deeper analysis of that vote shows that Cleveland was extremely popular in the south because of his view on a tarriff which the south favored. In six southern state he pulled 65% of the vote and had a total margin of more than 425,000 votes. In the other 32 states Harrison's was nearly 395,000 votes ahead even though Cleveland won 12 of those states.

In 1876 there was so much voter fraud going on it is hard to tell who had how many votes in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. When votes in the other states were counted Tilden had a 184-165 lead in the EC with 20 votes yet undecided. Congress set up an electoral commission to decide those 20 votes and all went to Hayes. That commission voted on party lines with the exception of an independent Supreme Court Justice. Democrats tried to sweeten the pot for that person on the commission by giving them a senate seat which they implicently but not explicitly put out to vote in their direction. That person resigned from the commission and took the senate seat. The new commissioner threw the vote in favor of the Republicans after a deal was made to end reconstruction in the south.

In 1824 six states still chose their electors by votes from the state legislatures including the largest state NY. There were also four states that split their votes via Congressional district. There were 4 candidates running that year who split the vote while the leading candidate, Andrew Jackson, had 43% of the popular vote. Crusty Jackson was not popular with the legislatures getting votes from South Carolina and small split of NY. In the end of the 71 votes from legislatures, he receive only 15. Overall he received 99 of the 261 votes with 131 needed for election. The matter was sent to the House by the rules of the Constitution and the bottom candidate dropped off. John Quincy Adams won there most likely due to a deal that offered the Secretary of State to the losing candidate, Henry Clay. Clay threw his hefty weight behind Quincy Adams who won the votes of 13 of the 24 delegations.

__________________
-Watching Eddie Podolak

Quote:

Originally posted by Logical
When the boobs are a bouncin, the Chiefs will be trouncin

What the Raiders fan has said is true, our customs are different. What Al Davis has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words.

Putting the vote entirely on a popular vote means that candidates would mean that candidates would try to run up totals from where they are popular. It would probably mean a gain of voters from those areas while having poor turnout in most of the country.

A more representative system would be where each congressional district is put into play. It would drive up votes in all areas and take the elections from being contested only in swing states.

__________________
-Watching Eddie Podolak

Quote:

Originally posted by Logical
When the boobs are a bouncin, the Chiefs will be trouncin

What the Raiders fan has said is true, our customs are different. What Al Davis has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words.